>The critic is the real artist.
Is he right?
#no
#no
Me on the right
#yes
What's she thinking, /mu/?
>>60861675
are you a boy or a girl?
>>60861702
It doesn't matter to old Scruff
>>60861619
It just shows how wrong his entire view of music is.
>>60861701
"Pls noe raep"
>>60861722
EXACTLY
>>60861701
>Please help me
There's no way, he didn't really say that did he? I'm not a huge fan of his but there's no way he non-ironically said that.
>>60861619
I'm gonna go with (not true, by the way)
>scruffles will die in your lifetime
>>60861825
damn...
I'm the hovering hands
>>60861825
>thing i'd like to forget ever having read: the post
I don't trust people with hovering hands
>>60861825
This has to be a joke. He's either joking or literally absolute madman
I don't understand I mean is anyone going to posit a rebuttal to his assertion or not.
lads
>>60862011
I'll rebutt his ass alright
>>60861825
these are some olympic gold medal mental gymnastics
>>60861701
>WAKE ME UP
>(wake me up inside)
>>60861825
>>60862052
Okay now what is your rebuttal.
>>60862011
Why? If he was actually being serious, which I doubt, his statement is not only wrong but borderline delusional. Arguing with it is like arguing with a child who claims to know everything.
>>60861722
As long as (s)he's 12
>>60861825
>>60862118
>his statement is not only wrong but borderline delusional
How so, when it is the critics and the academics who gave "krautrock" its name. When it is the critics and the academics who gave Glenn Branca's "The Ascension" the attention it deserved.
I think what most people fail to realize about what Scaruff is saying is that the critic can ALSO be the person playing the instrument.
>>60862164
>I think what most people fail to realize about what Scaruff is saying is that the critic can ALSO be the person playing the instrument.
I get it it's like a metaphor right?
>>60861825
by criticizing this theorem i am the true artist of it
piero scaruffi: 1955-2015
>>60862193
No. Taken on its own, Scaruffi's bullet points make it seem like the people who purchase/listen to the music are the only ones who can be artists, not the person CREATING the music the critics listen to.
But that's not true, and I think that's where people fuck up when talking about this. When Faust created their first album, it was a gigantic middle finger to the last 30 years of rock music. They were critics of the era before them, and created music. Artists. Fuck man this isn't difficult.
>>60862238
>When Faust created their first album, it was a gigantic middle finger to the last 30 years of rock music.
I get it it's like a metaphor right?
>>60862259
>>60861825
but if I criticize the critic and the critic is the real artist, then that in fact makes me the real artist
>>60862220
IS THIS THE REAL LIFE?
>>60862238
this is a misreading of a misreading
>>60862301
OR IS THIS JUST FANTASY?
>>60862321
Care to elaborate?
>>60861825
First two lines are true
Third is agreeable
Fourth is a stretch but I get it
I really want to say I get the fifth more than I do but it just sounds terrible
>>60862300
>>60862326
TRAPPED IN A GEOGRAPHICAL DISTURBANCE
>>60862418
NO EXIT OUT OF REAL LIFE
>>60862164
Alright fine, I'll stoop to your level.
Critics are not in any form, by any extent of imagination, artists. Critics write responses to art in the form of informative/persuasive essays, in which they inform their followers about the details of the art and their opinions of them, and then defend their position with logic and facts about the artist, their ideas of what good art is, and art history. Not only is this not in any form an 'extension of the art they criticize', or whatever nonsense he was trying to imply, but is not even literary art because it is objective. Success to a critic is having their opinions considered and valued by many people, the sole motive of their livelihood.
My opinion that Scaruffi's statement is borderline delusional (in the case that he's actually serious), is because I believe it would stem from his ego conflicting with the fact that he's never made art of his own, and cause him to go as far as insinuating that he's somehow above the music he critiques.
>>60862164
>How so, when it is the critics and the academics who gave "krautrock" its name.
yeah, a borderline racists name that does nothing to describe the sounds of the bands in that genre.
>>60862488
he's made some art
poetry most notably
>>60862498
>hey look! theres this really cool scene in germany. Kind of sounds like rock but different
>I know! Lets call it... 'Krautrock'
>I am le artist now
>>60862300
>the value of critique depends on the values of the critic critic
>the critic is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic critic
>the critic critic is the real artist
>>60862498
>a borderline racists name that does nothing to describe the sounds of the bands in that genre
it was an insult for German prog rock. British people were still angry about the war
does that make the artist the critic?
>>60861825
I think you guys are completely missing his points
When he says the critic - he means the listener, not actually professional music critics
>>60861619
>double hover hand
Scaruffi is a true beta
>>60862619
damn...
is he actually fucking hover handing kek
>>60862630
But the idea itself is based on a logical misconception. It's true that the purpose of art is fulfilled by the combination of artists and art lovers, but that doesn't mean that everyone who experiences art is also an artist. The word "artist" implies the creation of art. To say a listener is an artist is like saying a food consumer is a chef.
>>60862498
Yes...I never said whether it was right or not. Just an example of what the critics and academics are capable of.
>>60862488
>by any extent of imagination, artists
...Except when they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epuga2JoF8A
>Critics write responses to art in the form of informative/persuasive essays
...Or with art in turn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47vqy5mIWIU
>Success to a critic is having their opinions considered and valued by many people, the sole motive of their livelihood.
Why is this even being brought up?
>about the details of the art and their opinions of them, and then defend their position with logic and facts about the artist, their ideas of what good art is, and art history
Yes, yes.
>>60862847
Lusty Negro Attitude
dot
Jaypeg
>>60862847
nigga looks like a propped up corpse
ol' weekend at bernie's-looking nigga
>>60861825
>>60863024
so the eater is the real chef too, right
>>60861619
>>60862847
>>60863024
Scaruffi confirmed for slayer
>>60863125
>those pants
a fucking real artist at work
>>60862887
Your response, "except when they are", is correct. If a critic is also an artist, then yes they are an artist. If a musician uses art as a medium of criticizing other art, then their critique is in fact art.
My point is that a critic that DOESN'T make his criticism in an artistic form, such as Scaruffi, has no justification in referring to himself as an artist, unless of course he was referring to his poetry as the other anon mentioned, which he clearly wasn't.
I brought up those other things to outline the fact that criticism is objective and not at all a form of art.
>>60863217
Oh alright we good then.
>>60862932
kekkles
